Tag Archives: hispanics

No, All the New Jobs Have Not Passed Whites By

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Over at the New York Times today, Eduardo Porter takes on the notion that working-class whites ignore their economic interests and vote for Republicans because of social issues like abortion and guns:

This view fits a common narrative among liberal analysts of American politics….But it largely misses the mark….There are almost nine million more jobs than there were at the previous peak in November 2007, just before the economy tumbled into recession. But the gains have not been evenly distributed.

Despite accounting for less than 15 percent of the labor force, Hispanics got more than half of the net additional jobs. Blacks and Asians also gained millions more jobs than they lost. But whites, who account for 78 percent of the labor force, lost more than 700,000 net jobs over the nine years.

This is very badly misleading. Let’s plow our way through a fistful of charts to get at the truth. First up, here’s the employment level:

Porter is right: if you look at the raw number of jobs, blacks and Hispanics have gotten most of them. Whites are at about the same level as they were in 2007. How can this be? That’s easy: it’s because the white population is at about the same level as it was in 2007

Whites have the same number of jobs as in 2007 because there are the same number of whites as in 2007. Hispanics and blacks have more jobs because there are more Hispanics and blacks. This means nothing. What you’d like to know is what percentage of each group is employed:

These numbers rattle around a bit. Whites did better in 2010-13 while blacks and Hispanics have done better in 2014-16. At this point they’re all within a few points of each other. Now put all this together and you get the unemployment rate:

All three groups are at nearly the exact same level as they were in 2007, which means that all the new jobs have been shared out equally by population. Whites have done about as well as anyone else, and since whites started out ahead, it means they’re still ahead. Here’s the unemployment rate today, which is nearly identical to the rate in 2007:

Whites: 4.2 percent
Hispanics: 5.7 percent
Blacks: 8.1 percent

If you take a look at this stuff without accounting for population growth you’ll be badly misled. When it comes to jobs, whites had it better than blacks and Hispanics in 2007 and they still do today by about the same amount. They haven’t been screwed by the job market any more than anyone else, and they haven’t gained or lost ground. After ten years with a huge recession in between, we’re all back where we started.

More: 

No, All the New Jobs Have Not Passed Whites By

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on No, All the New Jobs Have Not Passed Whites By

These Maps and Charts Show Where Clinton and Trump’s Essential Voters Are

Mother Jones

Three weeks ago, FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver made an hypothetical map of what would happen if only women voted for president on November 8. The results were strikingly lopsided: Hillary Clinton would trounce Donald Trump, 458 electoral votes to 80.

FiveThirtyEight

After that map (right) went viral, Trump fans rushed to reinforce his resistibility to most women by tweeting the hashtag #Repealthe19th (as in the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote). Another Silver map, showing that a male-only electorate would elect Trump in a landslide, confused Eric Trump, who blasted it to his dad’s supporters, proclaiming, “Right now all the momentum is on our side.” These maps also sparked a slew of “What if only ____ voted” joke maps.

Ste Kinney-Fields

Yet Silver’s gendered election maps also inspired a set of maps (right) that further broke down various electoral scenarios by demographic group, which was shared widely.

While there were some initial questions about their origins and sourcing, the maps’ creator, Ste Kinney-Fields, came forward and revealed that her data came from FiveThirtyEight’s Swing-O-Matic. That’s a nifty tool that lets users generate presidential election outcomes by tweaking the political preferences and voter turnout among different demographic groups.

These maps highlight just how essential demographics are for each candidate’s path to the White House. Clinton can not win without the votes of women and people of color, and conversely, Trump can not win without men and white people. But these maps’ emphasis on winner-take-all electoral math obscures the depth and variance of the candidates’ support among key demographic groups. Silver’s map of women’s votes assumes that because Clinton is beating Trump by 10 percentage points nationally, a women-only election would boost her performance by 10 points in every state. And the viral maps based on the Swing-O-Matic uses 2012 election data to predict voter preferences and turnout rates.

For more current, state-level numbers on how various demographic groups might vote, I pulled data from YouGov, whose election model is based on more than 46,000 recent interviews with potential voters. Using its data, I generated a series of “What if only ____ voted” maps show which states the candidates would win, and by how much. (They’re based on YouGov’s October 22 data.)

What if only women voted?

Let’s start with women. In Silver’s map, women would hand Clinton 458 electoral votes. (A candidate needs 270 to win.) In the map below, based on the YouGov data, Clinton still has a lock on 330 electoral votes. (Texas and South Carolina were too close to tell, but they would probably go to Trump.) In all 50 states, she gets more support from women than men, but her level of support among women varies widely. Their support for Clinton ranges from a high of 86 percent in Washington, DC, to a low of 30 percent in Utah. In New York and California, she’d win by more than 30 points. But in Wyoming and West Virginia, she’d lose by more than 20 points.

“undefined”==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper=”YfygQ”:}),window.datawrapper”YfygQ”.embedDeltas=”100″:644,”200″:486,”300″:444,”400″:427,”500″:427,”600″:400,”700″:400,”800″:400,”900″:400,”1000″:400,window.datawrapper”YfygQ”.iframe=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-YfygQ”),window.datawrapper”YfygQ”.iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper”YfygQ”.embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper”YfygQ”.iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+”px”,window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a)if(“undefined”!=typeof a.data”datawrapper-height”)for(var b in a.data”datawrapper-height”)”YfygQ”==b&&(window.datawrapper”YfygQ”.iframe.style.height=a.data”datawrapper-height”b+”px”));

What if only men voted?

Relying just on men, Trump would easily win with 338 electoral votes. Overall, Trump has a consistent advantage among men, ranging from 2 points (Delaware) to 10 points (Montana). Men’s support for Trump ranges from a high of 61 percent in West Virginia and Wyoming to a low of 12 percent in Washington, DC. The map below is a bit bluer than Silver’s: Clinton could win over dudes by a small margin in Virginia.

“undefined”==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper=”r7I4t”:}),window.datawrapper”r7I4t”.embedDeltas=”100″:585,”200″:471,”300″:427,”400″:427,”500″:400,”600″:400,”700″:400,”800″:400,”900″:400,”1000″:400,window.datawrapper”r7I4t”.iframe=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-r7I4t”),window.datawrapper”r7I4t”.iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper”r7I4t”.embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper”r7I4t”.iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+”px”,window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a)if(“undefined”!=typeof a.data”datawrapper-height”)for(var b in a.data”datawrapper-height”)”r7I4t”==b&&(window.datawrapper”r7I4t”.iframe.style.height=a.data”datawrapper-height”b+”px”));

What if only white people voted?

Trump’s strong support from white voters is no secret. If only they voted, he’d win handily. Here, the YouGov data is similar to the FiveThirtyEight data. It shows the depth of support that Trump enjoys among white people, especially in the South, where Clinton trails by 40 points or more in every state from Texas to South Carolina. And in most otherwise blue states, Trump and Clinton are within several points of each other.

“undefined”==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper=”H33Mv”:}),window.datawrapper”H33Mv”.embedDeltas=”100″:675,”200″:486,”300″:459,”400″:427,”500″:427,”600″:400,”700″:400,”800″:400,”900″:400,”1000″:400,window.datawrapper”H33Mv”.iframe=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-H33Mv”),window.datawrapper”H33Mv”.iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper”H33Mv”.embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper”H33Mv”.iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+”px”,window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a)if(“undefined”!=typeof a.data”datawrapper-height”)for(var b in a.data”datawrapper-height”)”H33Mv”==b&&(window.datawrapper”H33Mv”.iframe.style.height=a.data”datawrapper-height”b+”px”));

YouGov doesn’t provide state-level data for white men, white women, or white people by education level. However, by plugging its national-level data into the Swing-O-Matic, we can compare how various categories of white people would affect the election according to the FiveThirtyEight model and the YouGov model. (One big difference between two data sets is that FiveThirtyEight’s assumes two percent of the vote going to third party candidates; YouGov’s shows nine percent of the white vote going to third party candidates.)

The YouGov data for white people overall generates a pretty bleak electoral scenario for Clinton. However, its data for white women and college-educated whites looks much better for her. If either of these groups voted alone, Clinton would eke out a victory with 280 electoral votes.

“undefined”==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper=”xcRyq”:}),window.datawrapper”xcRyq”.embedDeltas=”100″:562,”200″:392,”300″:350,”400″:350,”500″:335,”600″:308,”700″:308,”800″:308,”900″:308,”1000″:308,window.datawrapper”xcRyq”.iframe=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-xcRyq”),window.datawrapper”xcRyq”.iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper”xcRyq”.embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper”xcRyq”.iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+”px”,window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a)if(“undefined”!=typeof a.data”datawrapper-height”)for(var b in a.data”datawrapper-height”)”xcRyq”==b&&(window.datawrapper”xcRyq”.iframe.style.height=a.data”datawrapper-height”b+”px”));

What if only black people voted?

Electoral maps don’t get any bluer than this. African-Americans support Clinton by huge margins. Only in Idaho does her support dip below 80 percent of black respondents—to a still-respectable 74 percent. Even though there’s no data for super-white Montana, it’s highly likely that its small black population backs Clinton—creating a scenario in which she’d pick up all 538 electoral votes. (So far, Trump’s Twitter followers haven’t suggested #Repealthe15th.)

“undefined”==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper=”WQWTH”:}),window.datawrapper”WQWTH”.embedDeltas=”100″:671,”200″:514,”300″:471,”400″:427,”500″:427,”600″:427,”700″:400,”800″:400,”900″:400,”1000″:400,window.datawrapper”WQWTH”.iframe=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-WQWTH”),window.datawrapper”WQWTH”.iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper”WQWTH”.embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper”WQWTH”.iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+”px”,window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a)if(“undefined”!=typeof a.data”datawrapper-height”)for(var b in a.data”datawrapper-height”)”WQWTH”==b&&(window.datawrapper”WQWTH”.iframe.style.height=a.data”datawrapper-height”b+”px”));

What if only Hispanics and Latinos voted?

Clinton also would enjoy a monumental landslide if only Hispanics and Latinos voted. However, her support among this key constituency dips in the deep South: In Mississippi, 47 percent of Hispanics prefer Clinton, while 42 percent support Trump.

“undefined”==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper=”CQ9dF”:}),window.datawrapper”CQ9dF”.embedDeltas=”100″:644,”200″:514,”300″:444,”400″:427,”500″:427,”600″:400,”700″:400,”800″:400,”900″:400,”1000″:400,window.datawrapper”CQ9dF”.iframe=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-CQ9dF”),window.datawrapper”CQ9dF”.iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper”CQ9dF”.embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper”CQ9dF”.iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+”px”,window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a)if(“undefined”!=typeof a.data”datawrapper-height”)for(var b in a.data”datawrapper-height”)”CQ9dF”==b&&(window.datawrapper”CQ9dF”.iframe.style.height=a.data”datawrapper-height”b+”px”));

What if only 18- to 29-year-olds voted?

The viral “What if” maps didn’t look at age, but YouGov’s data does include age cohorts. Young voters are another important Clinton base: If only Millennials voted, they’d overwhelmingly vote to make her America’s second-oldest president ever. However, her support among the young and youngish varies widely by state. In otherwise red states like Idaho, Wyoming, and South Dakota, significant chunks of these voters say they’re supporting third-party candidates Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. The real question about this voting bloc is: How many of them will show up to vote? About half of eligible 18- to 29-year-olds voted in 2012.

“undefined”==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper=”q9yT3″:}),window.datawrapper”q9yT3″.embedDeltas=”100″:639,”200″:499,”300″:427,”400″:427,”500″:427,”600″:400,”700″:400,”800″:400,”900″:400,”1000″:400,window.datawrapper”q9yT3”.iframe=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-q9yT3″),window.datawrapper”q9yT3″.iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper”q9yT3″.embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper”q9yT3″.iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+”px”,window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a)if(“undefined”!=typeof a.data”datawrapper-height”)for(var b in a.data”datawrapper-height”)”q9yT3″==b&&(window.datawrapper”q9yT3″.iframe.style.height=a.data”datawrapper-height”b+”px”));

What if only people 65 or older voted?

On the flip side, America’s oldest voters would elect fellow Baby Boomer Donald Trump. Clinton would still hang on in coastal blue states, but would still lose to a candidate who says he feels 35. And this group doesn’t slack on Election Day: About 72 percent of voters 65 or older cast ballots in 2012, one of the highest turnout rates for any demographic group.

“undefined”==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper=”1igtL”:}),window.datawrapper”1igtL”.embedDeltas=”100″:671,”200″:514,”300″:444,”400″:427,”500″:427,”600″:400,”700″:400,”800″:400,”900″:400,”1000″:400,window.datawrapper”1igtL”.iframe=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-1igtL”),window.datawrapper”1igtL”.iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper”1igtL”.embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper”1igtL”.iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+”px”,window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a)if(“undefined”!=typeof a.data”datawrapper-height”)for(var b in a.data”datawrapper-height”)”1igtL”==b&&(window.datawrapper”1igtL”.iframe.style.height=a.data”datawrapper-height”b+”px”));

While these maps are a fun way to generate poli-sci-fi scenarios, they’re still a useful tool for exploring the demographic coalitions Clinton and Trump need to win.

Or here’s another way to look at the data: Could Clinton and Trump win if any one of their major demographic bases didn’t show up to vote? If white voters or any subgroup of white voters didn’t vote, Trump would lose. If Hispanic voters didn’t vote, Clinton would still be safe. But if black voters went AWOL, she’d be cutting it uncomfortably close. If Clinton does win next Tuesday, she’ll probably thank all Americans for their support. But she should really thank women, people of color, and younger voters.

“undefined”==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper=”a8rsH”:}),window.datawrapper”a8rsH”.embedDeltas=”100″:624,”200″:454,”300″:412,”400″:412,”500″:397,”600″:370,”700″:370,”800″:370,”900″:370,”1000″:370,window.datawrapper”a8rsH”.iframe=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-a8rsH”),window.datawrapper”a8rsH”.iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper”a8rsH”.embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper”a8rsH”.iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+”px”,window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a)if(“undefined”!=typeof a.data”datawrapper-height”)for(var b in a.data”datawrapper-height”)”a8rsH”==b&&(window.datawrapper”a8rsH”.iframe.style.height=a.data”datawrapper-height”b+”px”));

Read article here:

These Maps and Charts Show Where Clinton and Trump’s Essential Voters Are

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on These Maps and Charts Show Where Clinton and Trump’s Essential Voters Are

New Study Suggests Police Shoot Whites More Frequently Than Blacks

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In a new paper using an interesting approach, Roland Fryer finds that police officers treat blacks and Hispanics more roughly than whites, but they don’t shoot them any more frequently:

The results obtained using these data are informative and, in some cases, startling. Using data on NYC’s Stop and Frisk program, we demonstrate that on non-lethal uses of force — putting hands on civilians (which includes slapping or grabbing) or pushing individuals into a wall or onto the ground, there are large racial differences. In the raw data, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to have an interaction with police which involves any use of force.

In stark contrast to non-lethal uses of force, we find no racial differences in officer-involved shootings on either the extensive or intensive margins. Using data from Houston, Texas — where we have both officer-involved shootings and a randomly chosen set of potential interactions with police where lethal force may have been justified — we find, in the raw data, that blacks are 23.8 percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to whites. Hispanics are 8.5 percent less likely.

Analyzing data from cities in California, Texas, and Florida, Fryer found that lethal force was used more often against whites than blacks.1This is from the New York Times:

In officer-involved shootings in these cities, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both of these results undercut the idea that the police wield lethal force with racial bias.

….A more fundamental question still remained: In the tense moments when a shooting may occur, are police officers more likely to fire if the suspect is black?

To answer this question, Mr. Fryer focused on one city, Houston. The Police Department there allowed the researchers to look at reports not only for shootings but also for arrests when lethal force might have been justified. Mr. Fryer defined this group to include suspects the police charged with serious offenses like attempting to murder an officer, or evading or resisting arrest. He also considered suspects shocked with Tasers.

And in the arena of “shoot” or “don’t shoot,” Mr. Fryer found that, in tense situations, officers in Houston were about 20 percent less likely to shoot a suspect if the suspect was black. This estimate was not very precise, and firmer conclusions would require more data. But, in a variety of models that controlled for different factors and used different definitions of tense situations, Mr. Fryer found that blacks were either less likely to be shot or there was no difference between blacks and whites.

Fryer calls this “the most surprising result of my career.” Needless to say, it’s based on limited data and a new way of looking at police shootings, so Fryer’s results should be considered tentative. And it’s worth keeping in mind that lesser uses of force are far more common in encounters with blacks than whites:

“Who the hell wants to have a police officer put their hand on them or yell and scream at them? It’s an awful experience,” he said. “I’ve had it multiple, multiple times. Every black man I know has had this experience. Every one of them. It is hard to believe that the world is your oyster if the police can rough you up without punishment. And when I talked to minority youth, almost every single one of them mentions lower level uses of force as the reason why they believe the world is corrupt.”

Food for thought. Fryer is a careful and high respected researcher, and he was motivated to conduct this study by the events in Ferguson a couple of years ago. Both of his conclusions are worth taking seriously.

1The results weren’t statistically significant, so technically Fryer’s conclusion is that there’s no difference between the shooting rate of whites and blacks.

See more here: 

New Study Suggests Police Shoot Whites More Frequently Than Blacks

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New Study Suggests Police Shoot Whites More Frequently Than Blacks

Donald Trump Isn’t Doing So Well In the Outside World

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Josh Marshall says that Donald Trump’s meltdown of the past few weeks is just what happens when a fast-talking hustler moves from the cozy confines of a friendly audience to the harsh outside world where his longtime act is met with wariness and ridicule:

The Trump world is based on a self-contained, self-sustaining bullshit feedback loop. Trump isn’t racist. He’s actually the least racist person in America. Hispanics aren’t offended by his racist tirades against Judge Curiel. He’s going to do great with Hispanics!

….Trump’s problem is that the general election puts him in contact with voters outside the Trump bubble….That creates not only turbulence but turbulence that builds on itself because the interaction gets in the spokes of each of these two, fundamentally different idea systems. You’re seeing the most telling signs of that with the growing number of Republicans who, having already endorsed Trump, are now literally refusing to discuss him or simply walking away when his name is mentioned.

Like a one-joke comic trying to move up from the local nightclub circuit Trump is bombing now that he’s facing a more cosmopolitan audience. And that prompts me once again to share Al Franken’s description of what happened to high-flyer Rush Limbaugh in the early 90s when he decided to see if he could move beyond the narrow confines of his radio show:

Whenever he’s ventured outside the secure bubble of his studio, the results have been disastrous. In 1990, Limbaugh got what he thought was his chance at the big time, substitute hosting on Pat Sajak’s ailing CBS late night show. But the studio wasn’t packed with pre-screened dittoheads. When audience members started attacking him for having made fun of AIDS victims, he panicked, and they had to clear the studio. A CBS executive said, “He came out full of bluster and left a very shaken man. I had never seen a man sweat as much in my life.”

Limbaugh later apologized for joking about AIDS and promised to “not make fun of the dying.” But by early ’94, he had forgotten the other lesson: he needs a stacked deck. This time disaster struck on the Letterman show. The studio audience turned hostile almost immediately after Rush compared Hillary Clinton’s face to “a Pontiac hood ornament.” Evidently, that’s the kind of thing that kills with the dittoheads, but Letterman’s audience wasn’t buying.

This is Donald Trump’s new world. Sure, the dittoheads are still there. And they’re enough when you’re just trying to win the local nightclub circuit that calls itself the Republican Party these days. But it’s not enough to win a general election.

View the original here:

Donald Trump Isn’t Doing So Well In the Outside World

Posted in FF, GE, LG, Mop, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Isn’t Doing So Well In the Outside World

Republican Demographic Problems Aren’t Just For the Future Anymore

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Here’s an interesting poll analysis from Reuters. It shows demographic shifts since the 2012 elections, and it turns out that most groups are pretty stable. There are three exceptions. On the plus side for conservatives, Jews have become slightly more Republican. But on the minus side, Hispanics and young whites have become significantly more Democratic.

Hispanics are no surprise. Republicans have spent the past three years loudly opposing comprehensive immigration reform and playing “can you top this?” when it comes to border security. Then along came Donald Trump, with his murderers and rapists and his big, beautiful wall. The only surprise here is Hispanics haven’t moved further away from the Republican Party.

But it’s certainly odd that Republicans are losing both Hispanics and young whites. Or maybe not. Older whites are generally attracted to traditional conservative values and the vague racial dog whistles that Republicans specialize in. But younger whites are probably turned off by social troglodytism—especially anti-gay animus—and don’t respond to the dog whistles one way or another. So they’re leaving.

I guess it’s time for yet another Republican post mortem that they can then proceed to ignore. Why wait until after the election, after all?

From:  

Republican Demographic Problems Aren’t Just For the Future Anymore

Posted in alo, ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republican Demographic Problems Aren’t Just For the Future Anymore

This Silicon Valley Giant Is Actually Hiring Women and Minorities

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In January, Intel raised the bar in Silicon Valley by setting concrete targets for hiring women and minorities. While other major tech firms had cut big checks to groups that promote workplace diversity, Intel was the only one to commit to measurable change, pledging to make its workforce reflect the diversity of the tech talent pool by 2020. Some saw the goal as overly optimistic, but Intel’s midyear diversity report, released today, shows that it is largely on track to meet its goals.

Overall, more than 43 percent of the company’s new hires since January have been women or racial minorities such as African-Americans and Hispanics:

These numbers may not seem particularly high—African-Americans, after all, make up 13 percent of the American workforce but just 3.5 percent of Intel’s. But they do compare favorably with the talent pipeline for technical jobs. (Just 4.5 percent of computer science degrees last year went to African-Americans). And the overall demographics in the tech sector are pretty skewed to white dudes:

Compared to those industry-wide numbers, Intel is still falling behind in hiring African-Americans. Yet a comparison of workplace demographics in December and July shows that it’s making progress on several fronts:

Though these shifts aren’t huge in percentage terms, they are notable for a company with tens of thousands of employees. The biggest jumps in minority representation have come within the company’s leadership ranks—which still remain heavily white and male:

Rev. Jesse Jackson, whose Rainbow PUSH Coalition has played a major behind-the-scenes role in Intel’s efforts to diversify, issued a press release praising the company. “Rainbow PUSH argues that companies must set measurable diversity and inclusion goals, targets, and timetables,” he said. “Due to CEO Brian Krzanich’s steady and visionary leadership, Intel is doing that and more.”

Read more: 

This Silicon Valley Giant Is Actually Hiring Women and Minorities

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Silicon Valley Giant Is Actually Hiring Women and Minorities

Raw Data: How Many Unarmed Victims Do Police Shoot Each Year?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Via Bob Somerby, here’s some raw data from the Washington Post’s ongoing analysis of police shootings in America:

According to the Post, about 16 percent of the victims weren’t carrying a deadly weapon at the time they were killed. That breaks down like this:

26 blacks out of 132, or about 20 percent.
35 whites out of 253, or about 14 percent.
17 Hispanics out of 83, or about 20 percent.

These percentages are roughly similar across races, but don’t account for total population. When you account for that, unarmed blacks are killed at about 4x the rate of whites and 2x the rate of Hispanics.

See the original article here:  

Raw Data: How Many Unarmed Victims Do Police Shoot Each Year?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Raw Data: How Many Unarmed Victims Do Police Shoot Each Year?

Chart: The Typical White Family Is 20 Times Wealthier Than the Typical Black Family

Mother Jones

We’re still posting a new chart on the current state of income inequality every day over the next week. Yesterday’s looked at how top tax rates dropped as top incomes rose.

Today, a closer look at how income inequality splits along racial lines. Whites’ average household income is 56 percent larger than that of African Americans and 39 percent larger than that of Hispanics. But the discrepancy is even greater when it comes to wealth: The median white family holds nearly 20 times more assets than he median black family and 74 times more assets than the median Hispanic family.

Source: Income by race: US Census; wealth by race: Edward N. Wolff

Illustrations and infographic design by Mattias Macklerâ&#128;&#139;

More here:  

Chart: The Typical White Family Is 20 Times Wealthier Than the Typical Black Family

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chart: The Typical White Family Is 20 Times Wealthier Than the Typical Black Family